Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

abcnews.go.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 720 posts

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#601

Post by whiddershins »

jonathankoren wrote: post #567
jcranmer wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those laws are frequently overturned as unconstitutional, but may still remain on the books because we don't do a good job of clearing out laws that were ruled unconstitutional. As a general rule of thumb, almost every time someone brings an edge case about whether or not speech is First Amendment-privileged before SCOTUS, SCOTUS rules in favor of the speech. (The main exception is speech of students in school.) SCOT…

The last court case was 2004, and the New York anti-mask was upheld. You don’t have to pontificate. The link was right there.

Random aside, I haven’t seen NY enforce the anti mask legislation during the Halloween parade, various protests, or Covid. So I bet a new constitutional challenge could be erected.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#604

Post by jakderrida »

lukev wrote: post #210
causal wrote: post #36

I might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. It is not reasonable to expect parents to spontaneously agree on a strategy for keeping kids off social media- and that kind of coordination is what it would take, because the kids + social media companies have more than enough time to coordinate workarounds. Have the law put the social media companies on the parents side, or these k…

But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.) It's the same problem with requiring age verification for porn. It's not that anyone wants kids to have easy access to this stuff, but that any of these laws will either be (a) unenforceable and useless, or (b) draconian and…

> It's the same problem with requiring age verification for porn. It's not that anyone wants kids to have easy access to this stuff

I do. Anything to avoid "the talk", tbh. I grew up Catholic. I never had "the talk". I don't even know where to start. Blow jobs?

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#605

Post by vimax »

trogdor wrote: post #519
dathinab wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO the general idea isn't terrible the implementation is, suppar. But hy that's why it's good that's it's not yet US wide as it means there is time to make improvements. - I'm not the biggest fan of hard cutoff - addictive dark patterns which cause compulsive use should be general banned or age restricted no matter where they are used, honestly just ban most dark patterns they are intentional always malicious consu…

>addictive dark patterns which cause compulsive use should be general banned or age restricted no matter where they are used, honestly just ban most dark patterns they are intentional always malicious consumer deception not that far away from outright committing fraud. How would you write a law that accomplishes your goal?

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine something like deceptive advertising regulations could serve as a starting point.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#606

Post by jlokier »

Aurornis wrote: post #444
jlokier wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet That seems intuitive, but it's not actually true. I suggest looking up zero-knowledge proofs. Using modern cryptography, it is easy to send a machine-generated proof to your social media provider that your government-provided ID says your age is ≥ 16, without revealing anything else about…

> The government doesn't learn which web sites you visit, and the web sites don't learn anything about you other than you are certified to be age ≥ 16. If the zero-knowledge proof doesn't communicate anything other than the result of an age check, then the trivial exploit is for 1 person to upload an ID to the internet and every kid everywhere to use it. It's not sufficient to check if someone has access to an ID whe…

There are technical methods to detect and revoke large-scale reuse of an uploaded id. I wrote more detail in another comment.

That only covers large-scale reuse. It doesn't cover lending your id to your younger sibling if you want to, or if they find a way. Maybe that should be acceptable anyway. Same as you can lend your phone or computer to someone to use "as you", or you can buy them cigarettes and alcohol. Your responsibility.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#607

Post by harimau777 »

ndriscoll wrote: post #589
brewdad wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now do need an abortion or sought out gender affirming care. Today’s “no big deal” can become tomorrow’s privacy nightmare.

You missed the either in GP's comment. i.e. they know you did one of those things because you requested an over-18 token, but not which one. The more covered activities there are, the more uncertainty they have about why you might have asked for a token.

This isn't really my area of expertise, is there a way to know for sure that those are all the same token? Or could the government just lie and say they are all the same when in reality they can really differentiate.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#608

Post by harimau777 »

paulddraper wrote: post #346
o11c wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In particular, "anonymous speech is required if you want to have free speech" is actually a very niche position, not a mainstream one. It just happens to be widely spammed in certain online cultures.

Correct. I am staunch believer in the moral and societal good of free speech. Anonymous speech is far more dubious. Like, protests seem valuable. Protests while wearing robes and masks however...

There are places where it wouldn't be safe to protest without masks. In that case people effectively would be losing their freedom of speech if it isn't anonymous.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#609

Post by mirekrusin »

protocolture wrote: post #569
jlokier wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet That seems intuitive, but it's not actually true. I suggest looking up zero-knowledge proofs. Using modern cryptography, it is easy to send a machine-generated proof to your social media provider that your government-provided ID says your age is ≥ 16, without revealing anything else about…

I dont want government crapware on my device to access the internet. I also dont want third party crapware on my device to access the internet. "wowee it can be done without revealing my identity to anyone but the government or the corp running the chain" No thanks

Identity is not revealed.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#610

Post by reactordev »

causal wrote: post #36

I might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. It is not reasonable to expect parents to spontaneously agree on a strategy for keeping kids off social media- and that kind of coordination is what it would take, because the kids + social media companies have more than enough time to coordinate workarounds. Have the law put the social media companies on the parents side, or these k…

The answer to our problems is not less freedom. It should never be less freedom. I’m opposed of any law that restricts freedom of information. No matter the age. I think we need to do better on educating kids on online behaviors and we should hold social media companies accountable for addictive features but what we absolutely shouldn’t do is blame little Jenny and take away her access to groups and social interaction online.
Post reply on HN